At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?'A republic, if you can keep it,’ responded Franklin

Did you get this from the book by Eric Metaxas titled “If You Can Keep It”?

In any case, it’s an excellent book . . . I highly recommend the book AND all other books by Eric Metaxas.

Mark Levin desires to re-write our Constitution to accommodate his personal predilections and beliefs. Are we to forget his egotistical “Liberty Amendments” which are a sophomoric and ill-advised attempt to accomplish, in several instances, what our original Constitutional already commands?

The Constitution doesn’t command a budget to be limited. It doesn’t, for instance, have the Swiss debt brake system, which forces the legislature to control their spending/

Nobody is perfect. His radio show is highly entertaining. Second favorite for me to Rush’s.

I agree with that! Levin’s show is also very informative! But when it comes to his desire to have a convention convened under Article V, he turns into a different person and is intolerant to others having a different view based on a number of legitimate questions.

Additionally, the intended use of an apportioned direct tax upon the states when imposts, duties and excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures, is a brilliant idea and creates a very real moment of accountability for each states’ Congressional Delegation which would have to bring home the bill and hand it over to their Governor and State’s Legislature, who would be stuck with having to deplete their State Treasury in payment of the bill, or, raise additional taxes within the state and then transfer that money into the treasury of the United States.

”The bill Walker signed Monday calls for the Assembly speaker to appoint three state representatives as convention delegates. The Senate president would appoint three senators. Assembly and Senate minority leaders would each appoint one delegate from their house. The governor would appoint one delegate from the Assembly of the Senate.”

Well, I see Scott Walker is using the phony pretense of requiring an annual balanced budget to call a constitutional convention during which time our entire Constitution will be up for grabs. Instead of promoting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, which is our Founder’s intended method to balance an annual budget, Walker has sided with countless evil doers who have been attempting to convene a constitutional convention in order to re-write the entire document.

In addition, we now see ordinary people in Wisconsin will not be delegates to the convention. Instead, existing swamp creatures in Wisconsin will select and appoint delegates, just as was done in 1984 in New Hampshire.

During the 1984 New Hampshire Convention to alter its State Constitution, which was challenged in U.S. District Court, of the 400 delegates 64 were attorneys, eight were judges, four were state senators, and 113 were state representatives and there were two legislative lobbyists….the very people who are now causing our misery! Do you have confidence in these sorts of people who would most certainly find their way into the convention?

The suit went on to charge “there has been over 175 lawyers, judges, senators and representatives out of the total of 400 constitutional convention (delegates) elected, (who) are already holding a public office both in the legislature and judicial branches in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and this count does not include wives and immediate family members who have been elected on their behalf.”

Additionally, the attempt to control the actions of delegates sent to a convention has already proven to be meaningless.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the Convention of 1787 was called and was specifically called for the “sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation“, and we wound up with an entirely new Constitution, a new federal government with a number of specific powers being ceded to it, and the event turned out to not be a simple revision of the Articles of Confederation as originally called for!

Whereas Congress did on the twenty first day of February Ao Di 1787, Resolve "that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of Delegates who shall have been appointed by the several States to be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several Legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States render the federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." And Whereas the General Court have constituted and appointed you their Delegates to attend and represent this Commonwealth in the said proposed Convention; and have by Resolution of theirs of the tenth of March last, requested me to Commission you for that purpose.

Now therefore Know Ye, that in pursuance of the resolutions aforesaid, I do by these presents, commission you the said Francis Dana, Elbridge Gerry Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King & Caleb Strong Esquires or any three of you to meet such Delegates as may be appointed by the other or any of the other States in the Union to meet in Convention at Philadelphia at the time and for the purposes aforesaid.

In Testimony whereof I have caused the Public Seal of the Commonwealth aforesaid to be hereunto affixed.
Given at the Council Chamber in Boston the Ninth day of April Ao Dom. 1787 and in the Eleventh Year of the Independence of the United States of America.
JAMES BOWDOIN
By His Excellency's Command.
JOHN AVERY JUNr., Secretary
_________

These same words appear in almost every State's call for the Convention of 1787, and the command “for the soul and express purpose” was ignored and we wound up with an entirely new Constitution, an entirely new federal government, and a number of specific powers were ceded to the new government being created in addition to the new government assuming state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War..

The bottom line is, the second method under which our Constitution may be amended begins with a convention being called by the various States for the purpose of proposing “Amendments”. And with reference to the delegates chosen by the various States, they would, in the words of James Madison:

probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. ___ See Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 25 March 1, 1788-December 31, 1789, James Madison to George Turberville

JWK
Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.

I doubt anyone here would disagree that two things this country DESPARATELY needs are term limits for Congress and the Courts and a REQUIREMENT for operating government with a balanced budget. Neither of those two things will EVER happen IF we rely on Congress itself to pass them. Deficit spending is like meat and potatoes to Congress–they spent $1.65 for every new $1 generated to the federal coffers by the Reagan tax cuts, just for example. Men and women who succeed in being elected KNOW that, for the most part, they are assured of that job with all its attendant perks for as long as they desire…IF they follow the dictates of Congressional “leaders.” They will NEVER do anything that might limit their time at the trough. In that regard, an Article V convention is the ONLY way we can ever limit their power.

It doesn’t limit the amount. There are no controls for this. We need that control.

It is not practical to limit the amount Congress spends year to year to provide for our general welfare and common defense. But it is practical to require the budget to be balanced on an annual basis, and that is the object of The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, which is feared with a passion by our Washington Sewer Creatures, and our domestic socialists, communists, and “progressives”.

Did you get this from the book by Eric Metaxas titled “If You Can Keep It”?

In any case, it’s an excellent book . . . I highly recommend the book AND all other books by Eric Metaxas.

The quote’s been mentioned quite a bit before. I have heard about Metaxas’ If You Can Keep It and some of his other books, although I haven’t had occasion to read them. I listen to him and John Stonestreet every weekday on the Breakpoint commentary on FLN’s (Family Life Network; our regional Christian radio network) noon news.

I prefer the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, our founders’ plan, which makes each state’s Congressional Delegation immediately accountable when Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes on articles of consumption.